Obama to seek congress approval

[Avatar4321]

He has made a great decision.

after Iraq, after Afghanistan, we need the representatives of The People to ok military action.

no doubt, Zionist extremists and fans of Al Qaeda will be furious at this decision.

Um.. the representatives of the people authorized Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Just for the record, this Hoffstra provided four links to sell pure propaganda stating that the idea of a strong relationship between Israel and the United States was untrue. I debunked all four of his links as propaganda, and provided a history of Israeli/U. S. relations back to the 1960s. Watch out for Hoffstra and his 'world of manufactured reality.' All I can do is put Hoffstra on 'ignore.' Posting against him is a waste time. Speaking as a WASP, Hoffstra looks like and anti-Semite* to me. Since this is the internet, I unable to handle this as I might in real life.

​

*Antisemitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such positions is called an "antisemite". It is considered by most scholars to be a form of racism.

Remember how Muslims say "Thank you?"

I remember how Israelis say "thank you".

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israeli ?art student? mystery - Salon.com

That's pretty funny.

Now, I must ask: who do you work for?

I am a WASP in the communications industry, who knows how to do a mystical thing called "reading."

Here is a link from a highly credible Jewish source that describes the Israeli/United States relationship all the way back to President Kennedy. U.S.-Israel: A Special Alliance | Jewish Virtual Library It is lengthy, but here is the conclusion:

"When we look at the evolution of the alliance, and the current, broad institutionalization of friendship, it is easier to understand why an Israeli election that brought to power a man whose policies clashed with the President's would have so little impact on the relationship. The truth is the differences between the present administrations in Israel and the United States are relatively narrow, primarily disagreements over the means to the same end."

I think the real question here is "What Anti-Israeli group are you posting for?" I provide facts, you are debunked noise.

We are The United States Of America and not The United States of Israel. Be an American, not an American Traitor. And my argument continues to be that a US attack would violate our Treaty obligations.

 

[Avatar4321]

Legally, he doesn't have any choice. Congress has to authorize force. The President has no authority to go it alone.

Of course, that didn't stop him with Libya. Of course, we had members of Congress who actually demanded to be heard this time.

 

[Avatar4321]

We are The United States Of America and not The United States of Israel. Be an American, not an American Traitor. And my argument continues to be that a US attack would violate our Treaty obligations.

First, what treaty obligations do we have with Syria?

Second, you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We are The United States Of America and not The United States of Israel. Be an American, not an American Traitor. And my argument continues to be that a US attack would violate our Treaty obligations.

First, what treaty obligations do we have with Syria?

Second, you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

The UN Charter is a Treaty and it provides for military strikes lawfully to be used against another nation when it is in self defense or pursuant to Security Council Resolution. Any attack by tbe US on Syria will constitute an act of aggression and a war crime. Treaties are the law of the land under the US Constitution. Whether Congress approves war crimes or does not will not operate to change their status as war crimes. An attack on Syria will be a war crime.

 

[Circe]

The UN Charter is a Treaty and it provides for military strikes lawfully to be used against another nation when it is in self defense or pursuant to Security Council Resolution. Any attack by tbe US on Syria will constitute an act of aggression and a war crime. Treaties are the law of the land under the US Constitution. Whether Congress approves war crimes or does not will not operate to change their status as war crimes. An attack on Syria will be a war crime.

Nobody cares about any of that.

Haven't cared for decades.

Normal operating procedure, ignore the UN.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We are The United States Of America and not The United States of Israel. Be an American, not an American Traitor. And my argument continues to be that a US attack would violate our Treaty obligations.

First, what treaty obligations do we have with Syria?

Second, you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

The fact we break treaties and commit war crimes every single day does not operate to make our acts lawful or sanction our war crimes.

 

[Synthaholic]

Legally, he doesn't have any choice. Congress has to authorize force. The President has no authority to go it alone.

Of course, that didn't stop him with Libya. Of course, we had members of Congress who actually demanded to be heard this time.

Blatantly false. Blatantly ignorant.

 

[Circe]

The fact we break treaties and commit war crimes every single day does not operate to make our acts lawful or sanction our war crimes.

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The UN Charter is a Treaty and it provides for military strikes lawfully to be used against another nation when it is in self defense or pursuant to Security Council Resolution. Any attack by tbe US on Syria will constitute an act of aggression and a war crime. Treaties are the law of the land under the US Constitution. Whether Congress approves war crimes or does not will not operate to change their status as war crimes. An attack on Syria will be a war crime.

Nobody cares about any of that.

Haven't cared for decades.

Normal operating procedure, ignore the UN.

Speak for yourself, all of us are not proud of US war crimes and serial violations of intl law. We are laughed at all over the world when our leaders talk about Morality. No nation has violated more intl laws or started more unlawful wars or killed more innocent civilians then we have.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The fact we break treaties and commit war crimes every single day does not operate to make our acts lawful or sanction our war crimes.

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

If you were concerned about WWIII, you would not be supporting the US in starting WWIII.

 

[Synthaholic]

The fact we break treaties and commit war crimes every single day does not operate to make our acts lawful or sanction our war crimes.

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

Likewise, if there are no penalties or enforcement against chemical weapons attacks, why does it matter if the world condemns it?

 

[Circe]

Speak for yourself, all of us are not proud of US war crimes and serial violations of intl law. We are laughed at all over the world when our leaders talk about Morality. No nation has violated more intl laws or started more unlawful wars or killed more innocent civilians then we have.

You aren't grasping some pretty important concepts as we go into a perilous situation.

1. There are no international laws, because there is no international enforcement. There is no law of ANY kind without enforcement, and that includes the Ten Commandments. If God isn't going to enforce them, people are going to break them, and how they do.

2. People who are powerless tell you there are laws, but these are just paper laws without enforcement, and they mean nothing, nothing at all.

3. You say no country has started more unlawful wars than the USA. That's nonsense: what about Germany? WWI and WWII. What about Japan and the Rape of Nanking and the attack on Pearl Harbor and the occupation of the Philippines and all the colony islands everywhere in that area? What about France and Napoleon? What about the Roman Empire conquering the entire world? What about the Mongols, overwhelming much of the Mideast and Europe. You need to study history: you apparently have no idea what has been going on, you just have a hate on against America. I suppose you must be a foreigner, maybe a Muslim.

4. You say we have killed more "innocent" civilians than any other country. You must never have learned any history whatsoever! The Romans killed MILLIONS, they simply depopulated every rebel area one by one with swords. The Congo now is up to some 4 million dead in the last few years. The Mongols regularly put entire cities to the sword if they resisted, 12,000 in Baghdad alone and built that famous pyramid of skulls. The Japanese killed fabulous numbers of Chinese before WWII in Manchuria; China and Cambodia killed amazing millions of their own citizens after WWII. Compared with the usual numbers killed in wars, we hardly kill anyone!

That said, I don't see bombing Syria as actually helping them out, somehow.

5. You are behind the times. You refer to "innocents," but there are no innocents anymore. That went out at the turn of the 19th-20th century. Probably way before, but for sure then. The idea now is depopulation. That's why the emphasis on poison gas and nuclear bombs, to depopulate the area that has enemies in it. I don't like it either, but if you don't even understand modern warfare, you can't think clearly about what is going on.

 

[Circe]

[If you were concerned about WWIII, you would not be supporting the US in starting WWIII.

I don't support it.

You must not have followed any of my posts heretofore. I am opposed to going to war against Syria.

But there is no use in you doing muddled thinking about this issue.

Where are you posting from? If you are an anti-American foreigner, there is no use in my talking to you --- I make a point of avoiding enemy propagandists. No "aid and comfort to the enemy." You don't sound American to me. What are you?

 

[Redfish]

The fact we break treaties and commit war crimes every single day does not operate to make our acts lawful or sanction our war crimes.

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

Likewise, if there are no penalties or enforcement against chemical weapons attacks, why does it matter if the world condemns it?

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

 

[Circe]

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

We appointed ourselves, after WWII. Because we're the richest and the biggest, and mostly because if we don't try to stop world wars, we repeatedly get dragged into them, as we saw in WWI and WWII.

This was a good policy, but it has worn out now. We keep making pissant wars that always lose and take ten years losing. (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan ---- soon Syria and Iran.) IOur world policeman role worked pretty well to stop WWIII for long time, nearly 70 years, but now we're more likely to be starting WWIII, so it's time for a different foreign policy, IMO.

Nothing lasts forever and this is not working.

 

[numan]

...you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

Likewise, if there are no penalties or enforcement against chemical weapons attacks, why does it matter if the world condemns it?

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

I agree. The Arab League should be taking the lead on this. I don't see any microphones being shoved into the face of the Chinese ambassador, asking what China plans to do about this chemical attack on civilians.

But their absence in responding does not absolve us of all responsibility to respond. The United States was the main force behind the chemical weapons ban. It greatly serves our interests to not have chemical weapons on any battlefields.

 

[Synthaholic]

...you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

You should not expect integrity from cultists.

 

[numan]

'
As Sherri pointed out, the United Nation's Charter is a treaty to which the United States is a signatory, ratified by Congress, and the law of the land according to the Constitution.

Those who think that it is all right to violate it have less respect for law and far less respect for the Constitution than even I have.

They are just much more hypocritical and morally degraded than I am.

.